Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
November 22, 2009
Free Newsletters:
RSS Feeds | Audio | Twitter

Home > Movies > Commentaries > Filmmakers of Faith |  
FILMMAKERS OF FAITH
'The Man Who Saw the Angel'
Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky opposed any intellectual interpretation of his films, but they were rife with spiritual imagery and signs of his faith.
| posted 7/24/2007


Raised in the Russian Orthodox tradition, director Andrei Tarkovsky once told an interviewer, "I consider myself a person of faith, but I do not want to delve into the nuances and problems of my situation, for it is not so straightforward, not so simple, and not so unambiguous."

The most revered Russian filmmaker since Sergei Eisenstein, Tarkovsky offers an unabashedly religious worldview, without which, he wrote, "people cease to feel any need for the beautiful or the spiritual, and consume films like bottles of Coca-Cola."

In his famous book on directing, Sculpting in Time, Tarkovsky wrote, "Concerned for the interests of the many, nobody thought of his own in the sense preached by Christ: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' That is, love yourself as much that you respect in yourself the supra-personal, divine principle, which forbids you to pursue your acquisitive, selfish interests and tells you to give yourself, without reasoning or talking about it, to love others."

Tarkovsky on the set

Tarkovsky's diaries—published under the title Time Within Time, which he called, tongue only partially in cheek, Martyrology—are peppered with ruminations on God and film, with Scripture references and with desperate prayers for help (e.g. "Lord! I feel You drawing near, I can feel Your hand upon the back of my head. Because I want to see Your world as You made it, and Your people as You would have them be. I love You, Lord, and want nothing else from You.").

One page has a drawing of a cross and Tarkovsky has written, "What can I do? Only pray! And believe. The most important thing of all is this symbol, which it is not given to us to understand, only to feel. To have faith in spite of everything; to have faith."

He worked slowly and met with much resistance from the Soviet authorities, yet his half-dozen feature films, though difficult to interpret on any more than an intuitive, experiential level, are hypnotic: images from each burn indelibly into the viewer's memory.

Opposed interpretation

Tarkovsky opposed any intellectual interpretation of his films. When asked what rain means in his films, he replied merely that it rains a lot in Russia. When pressed for the water symbolism in his films, he rebelled that water is merely cinematic, that there was no meaning beyond its existence on film.

The director behind the camera

Nature, not seen as fallen in the Eastern church, but rather good at its core, possible even of bringing one to salvation, plays a major role in his films. Horses and dogs figure prominently, and the earthy elements of fire and water are omnipresent.

The influence of Russian religious history is also evident in his use of the Holy Fool, an archetype of Russian literature—often characters of deep faith, seen as fools by the world, yet who see God's reality as it truly is.

All his films deal with apocalyptic scenarios; indeed, one film idea he had was titled "The End of the World," yet he refused the label "pessimist." Indeed, he said of apocalyptic literature, "It would be wrong to consider that the Book of Revelation only contains within itself a concept of punishment, of retribution; it seems to me that what it contains above all, is hope."

Ivan's Childhood, about a boy living in wartime, was his first feature film and was championed by no less than Jean Paul Sartre. One can see many of the above-mentioned features at least in embryonic form, but it was with his next film that Tarkovsky took a great leap into the pantheon of great filmmakers.

Andrei Rublev—originally titled The Passion According to Andrei—portrays the great Russian icon painter's life during a period of enforced muteness wherein he did not paint for more than a decade. Rublev is never shown painting his icons, and the film, shot in black and white, bursts into color only at the very end as the icons attributed to Rublev are shown in loving detail via slow pans, tilts and zooms. The film was criticized for its violence and earthiness, although Tarkovsky surely found the modern world much more brutal in comparison.




E-mail this pageWrite CTPrint this articlePost a comment





  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]
Average User Rating: Not rated

The allotted time for commenting has ended.

sponsors 








[Browse More Christianity Today]

Search

























Search by Name
Or use Advanced Search to search by program, region, cost, affiliation, enrollment, more!

Search by:





Books & Culture
Christianity Today
Church Law & Tax Report
Church Finance Today
Leadership Journal
Men of Integrity
Outcomes
Kyria.com
Your Church
ChristianityTodayLibrary.com
PreachingToday.com